Home > Crazy Ideas > Ending Things

Ending Things

February 16, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

As the category of this post indicates, this is another somewhat embryonic idea I’ve been batting around. Generally, I look for the ending of a campaign to be heroic. Most of my campaigns are fairly adventurey and that leads to some kind of confrontation with some kind of villain and, in the end, the PCs “win” in some sense. They vanquish an evil or whatever; they upset the status quo. That is, I’d say, also probably the most common ending in adventure fiction, as well. The Evil Empire is defeated, the Federation is saved from the Borg, The One Ring is destroyed, Buttercup is rescued and Prince Humperdinck disgraced. You get the idea.

However, there is a class of fiction that doesn’t end that way. In the end, the protagonists aren’t heros to the masses and probably haven’t even upset the status quo on a temporary basis, let alone a permanent one. In fact, the victory seems to be that the events of the story didn’t kill them (or didn’t kill all of them). In the last few scenes, they all sort of look at each other and say, “Phew! Well, I’m certainly glad that’s over.” They still ride off into the sunset, but only to go back to what they were doing before, more or less. The ending of the pilot episode of Firefly has this feel. To a certain extent, the ending of (at least the most recent remake of) 3:10 to Yuma is like this, too, though with a high death toll. The ending of a lot of post-apocalyptic fiction is like this; The Road or The Postman (not the movie). A lot of horror movies fall into this category as well.

So what I’m wondering about is whether this kind of ending would play well in a campaign. On the one hand, I have always personally liked this feel. It makes for a smaller scope story, but that’s OK to me and isn’t common enough. I think, though, that it could potentially be a bit of a let down for the players. Or too easy to make it not feel enough like an ending to the story and, so, feel like the campaign just sort of stopped for no reason.

Take a post-apocalyptic setting, for instance. The PCs are a group of people scratching out an existence 15 years after The Day near your home town, say. They’ll fight some motorcycle bandits in football-pads-with-spikes. They’ll explore some ruined sky scrapers, that kind of thing. There’s a bit of an impulse, for me, to have the plot end up being about the apocalypse. Since it’s so central to the setting, it ends up feeling like the plot should involve it. So do the PCs learn what happened and how? Do they learn how to undo it, or prevent it from happening again? Suddenly, I feel like it’s turning into a super hero game.

On the other hand, if the PCs don’t solve the apocalypse, will the players feel like whatever ending (saving their little junk town from bikerbarians, say) is too small and wonder what knocked over all the sky scrapers and killed off 95% of the population? Will they be left unsatisfied that their PC, who was doing heroic things yesterday, is going to go back to rooting through the ruins of Walmart for tools they can adapt to farming in the hopes of getting something to grow in the bleached soil?

In fact, this brings up another interesting angle: Genre. Is the small ending a vital component of certain genres (horror, disaster, and western)? Maybe the reason I feel like undoing the apocalypse feels like a supers game is because the small ending is required for post-apocalyptic stories. Similarly, if I tried to have a story in another genre with a small ending, would it fall flat? Can space opera or action stories have these kinds of endings without feeling like they’re really a western (or whatever)?

What do you think about fiction that uses this device? Would you enjoy playing in a campaign that ended thus? Have you done so? Or run one? Can you think of any off-genre examples, or maybe genre I missed? Let us know in the comments.

Advertisements
Categories: Crazy Ideas
  1. Ross
    February 16, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    What you’re describing is not necessarily the most appropriate ending for a setting, just the most common.

    An example is the two endings to the most recent version of “I Am Legend”. The ending as it was originally put together was beautiful, understated, and artfully executed. Unfortunately, an exec at Warner Bros. felt it wasn’t epic enough to match the epic, post-apocalyptic storyline (the exec also wrecked thing because the original ending wasn’t sufficiently “Christian”, but that’s another point).

    Despite the new ending matching the scale of the story (WILL SMITH + JESUS SAVES TEH EARTH, U.S.A NUMBER 1!!!!!!!), it was forced and, frankly, hack. They’d fallen into the trap of believing the ending had to match the setting. The ending doesn’t have to match the setting, it matches the story.

    If during Final Fantasy IV there was any indication of a greater, extra-planet source of evil, perhaps we wouldn’t have said “The Moon?…Like, the MOON Moon?!” I get that Sakaguchi-san was looking for an epic ending, but it didn’t match the story. Hence, the confusion (confusion also due to thousands of years of cultural differentiation, but you see my point).

    The rub is that the ending must be sufficiently epic based on the characters, NOT the setting. It is only tangentially related to the setting because the setting helps determine the characters.

    • Ben
      February 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm

      You bring up some interesting points. Let me address them.

      First: You draw a distinction between appropriate and common. I’d say that the ones I discussed are common because they’re good. So, in fact, appropriateness is of concern to me (Cf. I Am Legend, as you point out). If the ending is too epic, that’s not appropriate and so is sucky.

      Second: Also confusion by American players over the cultural significance of spoons in Japanese culture, especially in the context of live music performance professionals.

      Third: This is, to me, the most interesting. I think you’re missing something, though, which is story. I think you’re right, the *setting* should not be the determining factor in epicness of ending (which is where post-apoc movies often fail). However, I’d argue that story is actually the most salient thing when considering the right epicness for the ending of said story. Which is to say you should have about the same level of epicness. And there is a very clear flow of effect from genre to story (to characters). I guess that setting also flow like that (to story and thence to characters).

      The distinction between genre and setting is key, though. Firefly is a western in genre, but the setting is not the American Wild West. You might think by looking at it that it was just scifi, but if you thought that Mal should be blowing up Death Stars, Boldly Going places or discovering that Love will save the galaxy from the great Evil, I think you’d be mistaken. This is still fuzzy, but you see what I’m sort of getting at?

  2. Ross
    February 16, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    I do see what you’re getting at, but the Firefly example you utilize highlights my point. Common to setting does not necessarily mean best because certain settings TEND to be utilized in certain genres and TEND to have certain characters. Too often a straight line is drawn straight from setting to story and thus endings (e.g. sci-fi = blowing up Death Stars).

    Character is important to the story in any context but this gets magnified 1000-fold because we’re talking about the context of a role playing game.

  1. February 23, 2010 at 7:06 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: